Culture: Goodness, truth and beauty

Continuing a riff on beauty from yesterday's post Culture: Hot or not? ...

Is there an instinct for beauty?

I suppose in the distant past when societies weren't so dominated by relativistic post-modern thinking the answer would be yes.

But today, the notion of absolute goodness seems quaint. People will say that goodness is sociologically determined and a cultural construct.

Likewise, today, truth is up for grabs when people say, true for you but not for me.

And of course, there is a time honored cliche which we all acknowledge some truth to: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

However, I suspect if we truly search our souls, we do have an instinct for each of these things.

I can't imagine anyone can look at a murderous rampage and declare there is no such thing as good and evil. On the positive side, anyone who has seen the life and works of Mother Teresa or other such "saintly" people would be hard pressed not to acknowledge there must be some reality called goodness.

As for truth, I appreciate the post-modern concerns of recognizing the limits of reason and the distorting effects of our perspective. But again, does that take ALL truth off the table and land them on the floor of relativism? I suspect some things might land on the ground of we aren't so sure but to say there is no such thing as truth? I think that is going a bit far.

Lastly, regarding beauty.

Can we go so far as to say that beauty as a concept doesn't exist?

I'm not a philosopher so I won't offer up a definition of beauty. But I definitely think beauty in regards to a woman's face and form is far wider than our media soaked culture would have us believe.

Also, I would suggest a casual walk through any contemporary art museum says the impulse for beauty has become confused at least among the artistic elites.

I'll leave aside the question of "is it art?" and the "I could have done that!" aspects of what inhabits our galleries. Rather, I will focus in on the "yuck factor" in a lot of what passes for art these days?

The "yuck factor" is an aesthetic impulse.

Don't get me wrong as I believe there are times when we need to confront the dark underbelly of life and face the evil that is in the world. Art can do that in bypassing our normal defenses. However, sometimes, I get the impression that some artists seem to revel in raising the "shock factor" of their work. Sometimes, we need a shock to move us out of complacency and to reach for a more noble side of ourselves. But sometimes, it seems the shock is just to shock and so the artist and the viewer winds up merely wallowing in that darkness.

Was watching one of the documentary features in the DVD Passion of the Christ about the Passion as depicted in art over the centuries. Clearly the core story is the same but the images have varied through the ages. So the form has changed over the centuries but the substance has a connection through time. One of the artist commented that that is the crisis of modern art today ... it has no story to tell.

If there is anything that is shocking it is the depiction of death on a cross. However, there is a story of love, hope and faith in that shocking scene.

I suppose you might say, if one "kills" notions of goodness, truth and beauty, what kind of story do you have to tell? What kind of art can you make?

I recently was at MOCA in LA and saw the Cosima von Bonin exhibit. Her works spans the whole gamut of this non-artists reactions to modern art from "is that art?" to "I could have done that!" to "Wow, that is pretty neat" to "Huh?"

Some of her works are big installations.

As I looked at them, I had to ask myself, "what is the story here?"

I had to conclude either she had nothing to say or her view of life was pretty bleak.

Is there an instinct for beauty?